posted at 12:01 pm on April 4, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Actually, Slate has two pieces up today on the Mozilla/Firefox nuttiness that cost Brendan Eich his job as CEO of the company, for a private political donation six years ago for a referendum that passed in California by a significant majority. Let’s see if you can guess which one is the satire. First up is Slate’s senior technology writer Will Oremus:

There was a time when supporting gay marriage made you a radical. Then there was a time when it made you a progressive. Now we’ve reached a point where not supporting gay marriage makes you unfit to lead a major Silicon Valley organization.

Some will say we’ve come too far, too fast—that it’s unfair to pillory someone for a political view that was held by the majority of Californians just six years ago. They’re wrong. …

The notion that your political views shouldn’t affect your employment is a persuasive one. Where would we be as a democracy if Republicans were barred from jobs at Democrat-led companies, or vice versa?

But this is different. Opposing gay marriage in America today is not akin to opposing tax hikes or even the war in Afghanistan. It’s more akin to opposing interracial marriage: It bespeaks a conviction that some people do not deserve the same basic rights as others. An organization like Mozilla might tolerate that in an underling, and it might even tolerate it in a CTO. But in a CEO—the ultimate decision-maker and public face of an organization—it sends an awful message. That’s doubly so for an organization devoted to openness and freedom on the Web—not to mention one with numerous gay employees.

Next, Will Saletan offers advice that the effort shouldn’t stop with Eich, but that the angry mobs should force companies to purge all the bigots:

Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.

More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” You can download the entire list, via the Los Angeles Times, as a compressed spreadsheet. (Click the link that says, “Download CSV.”) Each row lists the donor’s employer. If you organize the data by company, you can add up the total number of donors and dollars that came from people associated with that company.

The first thing you’ll notice, if you search for Eich, is that he’s the only Mozilla employee who gave to the campaign for Prop 8. His $1,000 was more than canceled out by three Mozilla employees who donated to the other side.

The next thing you’ll notice is that other companies, including other tech firms, substantially outscored Mozilla in pro-Prop 8 contributions attributed to their employees. That includes Adobe, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and Yahoo, as well as Disney, DreamWorks, Gap, and Warner Bros.

Thirty-seven companies in the database are linked to more than 1,300 employees who gave nearly $1 million in combined contributions to the campaign for Prop 8. Twenty-five tech companies are linked to 435 employees who gave more than $300,000. Many of these employees gave $1,000 apiece, if not more. Some, like Eich, are probably senior executives.Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them.

As readers have no doubt surmised, Saletan’s is the satire, while Oremus’ should be. What makes a bad CEO can and has filled books, but his private political donations fall very far down any list — except for the so-called “tolerance” and “no-H8″ squads that demand total subjugation to their agenda as the price to pay for public engagement on any level. Oremus noted that no one seemed to have a big problem with Eich’s presence as chief technology officer after the donation was made public, even though that too was an executive-management position with great control over the direction of the company. And despite all of the pitchfork brigade’s fulminating for his removal, no one has offered a single point of fact that indicates that Eich treated LGBTQ employees any differently than others while serving as CTO.

As Saletan points out by looking at the data, the notion that opposition to SSM serves as a definition of fringe thought and bigotry is risible when seeing just how widespread that position is, even in the entertainment industry. Support for the traditional model of marriage goes way beyond the CEO level, obviously. Should companies where that support far outstrips that for SSM demand the resignation of CEOs who support SSM? Stamping out political heterodoxy at the executive level seems to be Oremus’ point, to the extent he has one at all.

Had Eich been chosen as managing editor of The Advocate and this donation came to light, his termination would make a lot more sense. His politics would have been opposite of one of the explicit efforts by that publication. Similarly, since people have used this as a hypothetical, parochial school teachers who refuse to adopt the doctrines of the faith for which the school is designed to educate should know that they will have to find other work (which is why the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ministerial exception to employment law in those cases). Those are cases where the mission of the organization would be damaged directly by personal political action in opposition to it. In this case, though, there is no such connection between private political action and the operation of the company or service in its mission — as Eich’s long tenure as CTO demonstrated enough for him to get the top job. Mozilla exists to create web technology, not to serve a political or faith mission.

Of course Mozilla’s board can choose to hire and fire as it sees fit, but this shows that demands for “tolerance” and “noH8″ are unidirectional only. The rest of us can choose whether or not to use Mozilla’s products as a result of their intolerance for diversity of political thought. A few weeks ago, I wrote a column about the intolerance of the tolerance brigades, and its conclusion seems even more apropos now:

Tolerance does not mean acceptance or participation. It means allowing people to make their own choices about what they choose to do, and to respect the ability of their fellow citizens to do the same as long as it does no injury to them. What this contretemps shows is that America is getting a lot more intolerant the more “tolerant” we become.

If the headline strikes some as offensive, it will nevertheless remain, because that’s the case I’m making, and I’m sticking with it: a gay CEO with a pair of brass ones needs to step up and speak truth to a growing, and most illiberal new power. He or she needs to hire Brendan Eich in some sort of corporate leadership capacity for the sake of the most fundamental of freedoms — the freedom to think what you want to think, even if your thinking is unpopular or deemed “mistaken” — and in so doing boldly declare that our society has no truck with inquisitions. …

The very same people who have declared, “I yam what I yam”, and “we’re here, we’re queer; get used to it,” and who fought against discrimination on the basis of physical or emotional natures are proving themselves empty of magnanimity in victory. They are now saying “don’t be who you are,” and “you’re wrong, you’re gone; get used to it.” They’re applauding employment discrimination on the basis of an intellectual or spiritual philosophy.

What are they, anyway, philosophobes? Are they so terrified of any outlook which does not conform to theirs? I always thought a well-founded argument could withstand a little principled opposition. Apparently not.

Eich’s treatment is a symptom of weakness, not strength. Let’s hope it costs Mozilla, and teaches a lesson for all of the other companies that consider surrender to the “tolerance” squads.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

When it comes to the redefinition of marriage, sometimes it seems that we forget that we have the capacity to know what we know. Have we become so far removed from these philosophical elements of discernment that we can no longer ask ourselves these three simple yet fundamental questions? We could avoid all the nonsense and hand wringing and come to our senses whether marriage should remain the traditional union of one man and one woman or be reduced to include the folly of same sex couples.
1) Is homosexual behavior Natural? If no, then we should not promote it or give license to those who practice it. If you think yes, then does the behavior comply, comport or compliment God’s creation?
2) Is homosexual behavior Rational? If no, then we should not act as though it is just another legitimate lifestyle. If you think yes, then how does it comply, comport or compliment God’s creation? 3) Is homosexual behavior Moral? If no, then we should be teaching, practicing, promoting and perpetuating that which is moral. If you think yes, then why do homosexuals have to resort to such extremes for their acceptance, advocacy and approval in society? Just because the State may make laws justifying, legitimizing, and promoting homosexuality it does not make it right, it only gives license and does nothing to compliment God’s creation.

They should state that only bad CEO’s oppose marriage equality? Why is this statement specifically limited to same-sex marriage? Why does slate give very specific support to same-sex marriage while deliberately omitting all other marital rights? Why is Slate being so bigoted?

People have either forgotten or were never schooled of the fact that the National Socialist German Workers party was formed in a homosexual bar by homosexuals. This was no coincidence of history. Homosexuals with power are as vicious and vindictive as they are narcissistic. now you are seeing it on display in America. It can happen here…it has. its what you get when the country proudly elects a president because of his race…who happens to be homosexual. You have seen where his loyalties lie…

Forcing someone out of a job because of their values seems discriminatory to me. You don’t have to like his values, he doesn’t have to like yours. That’s what a free country is supposed to be built on. Why do gay people get to decide who has the right values and who doesn’t, and then ruin people’s careers or businesses or personal lives because they aren’t in agreement. It’s insane.

Taboos against homosexuality were widespread in subsistence-level societies and usually severe. When I was a sprout I used to wonder why. After all, most taboos have a basis, and the stronger the taboo, the more solid the basis.

The apparently irrational abhorrence to pork in Jewish and Muslim societies are very rational in the context in which the two religions evolved – arid, hot climates where there was a scarcity of water. Turns out swine need a lot of water in a hot climate. In a subsistence-level economy the village that permits swine goes to the wall during an extended drought, while the one that abhors pork survives. Almost like . . . a message from God.

The Hindi refusal to kill cattle has a similar basis. A dried-up cow is still tractor and food source for a subsistence-level farm family.

By why such prejudices against homosexuality? It did not seem to make much sense. Homosexuality wasn’t even hereditary and if it was it would soon remove itself from the gene pool.

I guess we are beginning to see the underlying reasons as homosexuality gains acceptance in modern society. Gays have fewer children than straights. As a result they have both excess time and money with which to push policies benefiting their agenda. And with power they become more intolerant of other (read straight) lifestyles, and begin imposing their values on others.

Of course, over time, this leads to collapse. After all, a society that is hostile to children (except as sex toys) goes away after a few generations. Fortunately I am old enough that the collapse will come after my death.

I feel sorry for my grandkids and great-grandkids. Assuming there are any, I suppose.

AP brought this up briefly yesterday, but there’d be no outrage if the CEO had donated to the Neo-Nazi party. The only difference here is that a large number of people still don’t think that opposing SSM is bigoted. That will change in time.

I think it is funny how people are swearing off Mozilla. Nothing wrong with doing that, so please don’t take this as flame bait (yeah, like that will help).

It’s just that seriously, do you think that you are going to change behavior of Mozilla by using a different free software product? Do you think that the good folks at Apple or Google are any less Left leaning?

Personally, I haven’t let the politics of my preferred SW maker decide what products I am going to use and I don’t see the point in it. I choose the best for me and let the market sort it out.

I guess we are beginning to see the underlying reasons as homosexuality gains acceptance in modern society. Gays have fewer children than straights. As a result they have both excess time and money with which to push policies benefiting their agenda. And with power they become more intolerant of other (read straight) lifestyles, and begin imposing their values on others.

Of course, over time, this leads to collapse. After all, a society that is hostile to children (except as sex toys) goes away after a few generations. Fortunately I am old enough that the collapse will come after my death.

I feel sorry for my grandkids and great-grandkids. Assuming there are any, I suppose.

No Truce With Kings on April 4, 2014 at 12:28 PM

This is an actual news headline:

German cemetery sets aside ‘lesbian-only’ burial area after gay women’s group called for somewhere for them to ‘live together in the afterlife’

This radical liberal fascist intimidation by grievance lobbies of through mob instigation on the net and through social media is gonna get uglier.

workingclass artist on April 4, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Yep, the gay movement is just another tool in the move to this. The destruction of any unit that challenges the governments control over the individual must be destroyed i.e., the traditional family and the church.

I think it is funny how people are swearing off Mozilla. Nothing wrong with doing that, so please don’t take this as flame bait (yeah, like that will help).

It’s just that seriously, do you think that you are going to change behavior of Mozilla by using a different free software product? Do you think that the good folks at Apple or Google are any less Left leaning?

Personally, I haven’t let the politics of my preferred SW maker decide what products I am going to use and I don’t see the point in it. I choose the best for me and let the market sort it out.

MJBrutus on April 4, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Yeah it is about as hypocritical as OKcupid needing JavaScript to use their site. Tell me when they are going to dole out the money to rewrite their programming. Or was their bullying campaign just lip service for PR?

Yes John, because Apple is so libertarian… ugh. In fact, let’s take that a step further, IE from Microsoft, owned by a liberal. Chrome by Google, also owned by liberals. Opera maybe… not sure what their proclivities are.

Point is, Mozilla/Eich should have manned up. Firefox (and especially their alpha Aurora) is probably the best browser available today (especially for developers). Let the homos boycott it… they’ll be stuck with IE and Mozilla will laugh all the way to the bank. When you have a great product, it’s pretty hard to boycott.

Picture this: instead of Brendan Eich in the crosshairs, it’s Tim Cook from Apple. Do you really think anyone would believe that people (or COULD) boycott Apple? Yeah, I’m sure all the homos would just throw their iPhones in the trash…lulz.

Let the product stand on its own and boycotts become almost irrelevant.

Yep, the gay movement is just another tool in the move to this. The destruction of any unit that challenges the governments control over the individual must be destroyed i.e., the traditional family and the church.

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 12:40 PM

That’s right. Scary stuff.

BoxHead1 on April 4, 2014 at 12:41 PM

A re-alignment of tribes by manipulating loyalty and they aim for the young.

Classic SOP for Tyrants.

Lenin and Stalin used it…so did Hitler and Mao in the modern era.

In parts of Africa the Warlords just kidnap the kids from the villages and brainwash them through constant fear causing trauma to the psyche.

Let the product stand on its own and boycotts become almost irrelevant.

nullrouted on April 4, 2014 at 12:45 PM

That’s NOT the point. I can deal with a CEO climate freak for the time being. Mozilla MUST be punished. This is a First Amendment issue.

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2014 at 12:47 PM

You’re absolutely correct John and it does make a difference. Mozilla gets something along the lines of 90 percent of its revenues through Foxfire search engine hits. The less it’s accessed, the less they make. 80-90 million or so.

To the queers, God must be RAAAAACIST! because biology doesn’t exactly work in their favor. Gays are unable to reproduce without victimizing heterosexuals.

ConstantineXI on April 4, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Yes, and this fact completely demolishes the ‘born-this-way’ argument. It’s nothing more than a disgusting fetish. However, if they want to argue that they were ‘born-this-way’ then fine… they’re admitting they were born defective.

And exactly how much tolerance the left wants. The referenced pic is exactly what the gays want to see happen. And as for Jetboy and others who don’t want to be lumped in–tough. Your movement calls everyone who disagrees a bigot, with very little resistance. If we are engaged in a civil war, then I’m sorry you guys are going to be casualties.

Yes, and this fact completely demolishes the ‘born-this-way’ argument. It’s nothing more than a disgusting fetish. However, if they want to argue that they were ‘born-this-way’ then fine… they’re admitting they were born defective.

nullrouted on April 4, 2014 at 12:54 PM

If gays are born, then they are mistakes. Dead ends in evolution.

An animal that CANNOT reproduce is defective, a mistake, and doomed to extinction.

This is about freedom of speech, for all, and about the gaystapo and its enablers. YOU will get yours, sooner than you think.

Stand for freedom of speech for all, or lose it, in the worst ways imaginable.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 12:52 PM

It is more than merely freedom of speech, it’s about freedom of religion. Christianity has traditionally taught that homosexuality is an abomination and sinful. To believe this anymore is considered intolerable, to publicly state that this is your sincere religious belief is to be open to public attack and financial reprisal, this is not merely an attack on free speech, but on free exercise of religion as well.

Rush has been on a roll about this for the past 45 minutes. And he’s not holding back one iota.

I hope he has body guards.

tru2tx on April 4, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Thank God for him. I was listening to Levin yesterday but he didn’t mention it , at least for the part of the show I listened to. Levin was raving about the Koch brothers, talking about how brilliant and persecuted they are. Talk about bad timing. I couldn’t care less about the Koch bros , especially not after this Eich kerfuffle.